It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What gives the US special status?

page: 14
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Did you just link me a CNN article? And you probably believe what they say.... Sorry, didn't read it cause of BS filter.

No sorry it's not all about you!



It's not about me thank god. It's about your diluted view of the world, caused mainly by CNN and the likes. Watching it for just 10 minutes makes my blood boil and want to go out on the street and kill somone (figuratively of course)

It's EXACTLY the same as Aljazeera or Hamas TV or whatever, I wish you would just understand that.




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokoman

It's not about me thank god. It's about your diluted view of the world, caused mainly by CNN and the likes. Watching it for just 10 minutes makes my blood boil and want to go out on the street and kill somone (figuratively of course)

It's EXACTLY the same as Aljazeera or Hamas TV or whatever, I wish you would just understand that.


Well see that's your problem! Why in the hell are you watching that garbage in the first place? I have provided links and charts and a concise explanation to support what I've been saying.

What point exactly are we supposed to be missing here? I know from real life experiences what I've been sharing. No I don't look at the US actions through rose colored glasses. Far from it. If there is anything that I have said that cannot be backed up by facts then please let me know.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 




Well see that's your problem! Why in the hell are you watching that garbage in the first place? I have provided links and charts and a concise explanation to support what I've been saying.

What point exactly are we supposed to be missing here? I know from real life experiences what I've been sharing. No I don't look at the US actions through rose colored glasses. Far from it. If there is anything that I have said that cannot be backed up by facts then please let me know.


It's not my problem. I generally don't watch any TV at all, but occasionally I get tempted to (and regret it the moment I do)

Weren't you the one who said that we in Europe (you said EU) are enjoying the longest period of peace and prosperity, ever? Wasn't I the one who had to wake you up and tell you that I had personally fought in a European war less than 10 years ago? Plucking out shrapnel from civilian flesh and digging up mass graves left right and center. Some concept of peace you have.
You obviously have no idea what is really going on in the real world.

In your so called facts and proof you have used only US sources. All this proofs to me that your view doesn't reach beyond your own borders.
But it's ok, you just believe your version of reality. I tried... I failed... next project



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
First you state



Originally posted by Mokoman
Besides, us Europeans never had an issue with the Russians / Communists / Reds or whatever names you have for them. YOU were the ones with the conflict. They were no threat to us. It was a showdown of masculinity between the US and USSR. They had no intention of threathening Europe. Just because you guys were threathened you made it appear as if they were going to destroy the world. US had an equal part in that conflict as the USSR did.


Then later you follow up with this.


Originally posted by Mokoman
Weren't you the one who said that we in Europe (you said EU) are enjoying the longest period of peace and prosperity, ever? Wasn't I the one who had to wake you up and tell you that I had personally fought in a European war less than 10 years ago? Plucking out shrapnel from civilian flesh and digging up mass graves left right and center. Some concept of peace you have.
You obviously have no idea what is really going on in the real world.



Almost half of present day Europe was behind the Iron curtain and you said that the Russian communists were never a threat? I noticed how before you WOKE me up to the that fact. You failed to account for that part of Europe when you thought then as you do now you were making a point.

Oh and by the way whom exactly is causing that conflict in the newly added location of the EU?

[edit on 17-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 



Almost half of present day Europe was behind the Iron curtain and you said that the Russian communists were never a threat? I noticed how before you WOKE me up to the fact that. you failed to account for that part of Europe when you thought then as you do now you were making a point.

Oh and by the way whom exactly is causing that conflict in the newly added location of the EU?


The USSR were not our enemy, they were YOUR enemy. They were fighting the Germans just as we were. The cold war was a nuclear stand-off, not a vile plan by the Russians to take over the world. If it weren't for the conflict the USSR had with USA then they would have no interest whatsoever in occupying any part of Europe. A deal was struck between you guys, handing half of Europe to them yet you make it appear as if the USSR was busy taking over the world. They did no such thing, it was the Germans, just for your info.

USSR suffered the highest losses of any country in WWII. They were in no position to take over Europe.

Please let's just leave it, your view on historic events will not allow for any new insights to be assimilated.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokoman
USSR suffered the highest losses of any country in WWII. They were in no position to take over Europe.

Please let's just leave it, your view on historic events will not allow for any new insights to be assimilated.




Well apparently so is yours! What? Did almost 40 years of real history after WWII just suddenly fall off the face of the Earth?


Yes During WWII the Soviets took heavy losses. But that was followed by almost 40 years worth of Sabre rattling from the Eastern European Warsaw pact supported by the Soviets that maintained overwhelming Armor and aircraft superiority over NATO. So let's not try to BS each other here and stop trying to romanticize or try to play down the real history and threat of the coldwar.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokoman
Please let's just leave it, your view on historic events will not allow for any new insights to be assimilated.



Originally posted by Mokoman
It's about your diluted view of the world, caused mainly by CNN and the likes.



Originally posted by Mokoman
You obviously have no idea what is really going on in the real world.



You don't know anything about me or what I've experienced nor where I've been or what I've seen. So please stop embarrassing yourself with your Narrow minded assumptions.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Mokoman
 


Bottom line is apparently they dont teach history in your country do they. I suggest you do some research maybe this will help, but again this is very general and i suggest take the time to research what im telling you!

At the end of WWII many European nations, especially those in the west, were very weak and had limited independence. In 1946, Diplomat George F. Kennan advocated Containment in these nations and across Europe. Containment was a "US policy during the Cold War, which aimed to prevent the spread of communism around the globe under the sponsorship of the Soviet Union". Kennan stated that the U.S. had to stop the spread of Soviet influence among the weakened nations of Europe, especially in the nations bordering the Soviet Empire. He felt that it was the United States duty to make sure that the Communistic ideals of the Soviets did not expand into other nations, enabling them to expand their empire.

Harry S. Truman agreed with George Kennan and in 1947, two years after taking office and two years after the beginning of the Cold War, he released his doctrine for dealing with communism and foreign policy. The Truman Doctrine proclaimed that Truman believed that any nation resisting Communism that economic and financial need, such as Turkey, that it should be U.S. foreign policy to aid these nations in order to keep them from conforming to communistic ways. He explained that this aid supplied to these nations would be primarily economic and financial aid which would lead to political stability within these nations. The Truman Doctrine specifically aimed to help the nations of Greece and Turkey by supplying them with an amount totaling $400,000,000. The economic and military aid that was given to the Greeks and Turks saved their nations from being overthrown by communist guerilla organizations. The Truman Doctrine was clearly recognized by the Soviets as an anti-communist doctrine, and a threat to their attempts to spread their influences.

The bottom line had the United States done nothing the soviets would have swallowed europe whole.No amount of revisionist history can change that fact.If you dont believe the soviets were a threat to europe why dont you check into why poland is still scared of the Russians.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch
reply to post by Amagnon
 





Certainly the US campaign against the USSR - political, and espionage was successful - but the system was unsustainable - it was a rotten, top down model that relied on brutality and murder. You should also rightfully claim responsibility for Chernobyl - which was 99% likely due to US espionage.


The US espionage/ Chernobyl disaster connection is an interesting one for anyone planning a novel. What do you have to prove that? I can't find a shred.



In January 1982, President Ronald Reagan approved a CIA plan to sabotage the economy of the Soviet Union through covert transfers of technology that contained hidden malfunctions, including software that later triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian natural gas pipeline, according to a new memoir by a Reagan White House official.


www.msnbc.msn.com...


"It is unlikely that the sequence of events
that led to the meltdown of the Chernobyl
nuclear reactor could have been accidental"

and that

"Technicians which disconnected the safety
mechanisms of the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant,
Alexandrov, Feinberg, Sagdeev, Zaslavsky,
are now living in comfort abroad."


www.visualstatistics.net...

If your looking for the CIA debrief report - or some other 'reliable evidence' your going to have to wait 50 years.

Personally I consider it extremely likely - what is also just as likely, is that you won't have anyone bragging about this, like they did with the pipeline explosion - because the pipeline explosion didn't kill anyone, or cause fallout across Europe.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Amagnon]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 




What does a natural gas pipeline have anything to do with Chernobyl? Of course the CIA was involved in screwing around with the Soviets. That was their job. Just like the KGB's job was to screw around with us.

I haven't met anybody who is a true student of Coldwar history that will ever deny any of that. Including over throwing Governments and installing and supporting Dictators. Yes like the ones we installed in Iran and Iraq. We got rid of our guy Saddam but did the Communist take care of their man in North Korea? Nope.

Hell, he is still there and now he is a nuclear armed outcast.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Hey thanks for the link. Star for you

I love this part here. It in a nutshell gives both east and west views of the how and why the Soviets lost.

Your source


"While there were no physical casualties from the pipeline explosion, there was significant damage to the Soviet economy," he writes. "Its ultimate bankruptcy, not a bloody battle or nuclear exchange, is what brought the Cold War to an end.

The role that Reagan and the United States played in the collapse of the Soviet Union is still a matter of intense debate. Some argue that U.S. policy was the key factor -- Reagan's military buildup; the Strategic Defense Initiative, Reagan's proposed missile defense system; confronting the Soviets in regional conflicts; and rapid advances in U.S. high technology.

But others say that internal Soviet factors were more important, including economic decline and President Mikhail Gorbachev's revolutionary policies of glasnost and perestroika.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Let me get this straight its the United States fault because the plans they stole i might add had errors and the CIA didn't give them valid copies of the plans. And weren't there scientists smart enough to spot these errors boy they weren't that stupid. You make it sound like they were back engineering alien technology!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 





Wait there's more from your other link...

Increasing doubts Years later, Russian people began to grasp the impact of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and realized who likely benefited from it. Also, with the passage of time, the naive belief of Russian people in the benevolence of the United States,


Sounds like ATS really needs to sign these guys up. They would fit right in with the Swine flu and 9/11 crowd.


Hey wait maybe 3 mile Island was an inside job or a KGB plot.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Mokoman
Please let's just leave it, your view on historic events will not allow for any new insights to be assimilated.



Originally posted by Mokoman
It's about your diluted view of the world, caused mainly by CNN and the likes.



Originally posted by Mokoman
You obviously have no idea what is really going on in the real world.



You don't know anything about me or what I've experienced nor where I've been or what I've seen. So please stop embarrassing yourself with your Narrow minded assumptions.


My assumptions regarding you are based solely on what you have posted. Other than that, you are right, I know nothing about you. However, I have shown on multiple occasions that your information is seen differently by people outside the US. You make claim to knowing what goes on in Europe yet you were obviously misinformed on that account (which I have countered not with biased news articles, but by what I've experienced in person) I have every right to my own opinion. As do you of course.
Why don't you inform me about the things you have experienced / where you've been / what you've seen. Maybe that would help me understand better where you're coming from and perhaps ease my obvious prejudice based on the info you've provided so far.

If you were to use sources from outside the US then that would have made your case stronger, but you haven't.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Mokoman
 


Bottom line is apparently they dont teach history in your country do they. I suggest you do some research maybe this will help, but again this is very general and i suggest take the time to research what im telling you!

At the end of WWII many European nations, especially those in the west, were very weak and had limited independence. In 1946, Diplomat George F. Kennan advocated Containment in these nations and across Europe. Containment was a "US policy during the Cold War, which aimed to prevent the spread of communism around the globe under the sponsorship of the Soviet Union". Kennan stated that the U.S. had to stop the spread of Soviet influence among the weakened nations of Europe, especially in the nations bordering the Soviet Empire. He felt that it was the United States duty to make sure that the Communistic ideals of the Soviets did not expand into other nations, enabling them to expand their empire.

Harry S. Truman agreed with George Kennan and in 1947, two years after taking office and two years after the beginning of the Cold War, he released his doctrine for dealing with communism and foreign policy. The Truman Doctrine proclaimed that Truman believed that any nation resisting Communism that economic and financial need, such as Turkey, that it should be U.S. foreign policy to aid these nations in order to keep them from conforming to communistic ways. He explained that this aid supplied to these nations would be primarily economic and financial aid which would lead to political stability within these nations. The Truman Doctrine specifically aimed to help the nations of Greece and Turkey by supplying them with an amount totaling $400,000,000. The economic and military aid that was given to the Greeks and Turks saved their nations from being overthrown by communist guerilla organizations. The Truman Doctrine was clearly recognized by the Soviets as an anti-communist doctrine, and a threat to their attempts to spread their influences.

The bottom line had the United States done nothing the soviets would have swallowed europe whole.No amount of revisionist history can change that fact.If you dont believe the soviets were a threat to europe why dont you check into why poland is still scared of the Russians.


As a matter of fact they do teach history in my country. Just a different version of what you've been told, does that make it non existant?

And regarding the Truman Doctrine (love the name) that really doesn't mean anything to me. I suppose you also believe that the Patriot Act is there to protect you from terrorists?

Edit:
Lots of people are scared of the Russians but ask yourself this: was this caused by agressive actions from the Russians themselves, or is there a slight chance that they were convinced to fear them by western propaganda?
But I believe it's better for all of us to be bullied by US than by the Russians. Since you guys have brought peace to the world an' all.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by Mokoman]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokoman
If you were to use sources from outside the US then that would have made your case stronger, but you haven't.



If you have sources that conflict with mine please feel free to post them. I'll actually read it and consider them unlike you.


Originally posted by Mokoman
Did you just link me a CNN article? And you probably believe what they say....
Sorry, didn't read it cause of BS filter.





posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mokoman
Lots of people are scared of the Russians but ask yourself this: was this caused by agressive actions from the Russians themselves, or is there a slight chance that they were convinced to fear them by western propaganda?



Western propaganda didn't force people by the droves to risk their lives trying to escape the Soviet dominates East to the free West.

The Berlin wall wasn't built to keep people out but to keep people in.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Mokoman
Lots of people are scared of the Russians but ask yourself this: was this caused by agressive actions from the Russians themselves, or is there a slight chance that they were convinced to fear them by western propaganda?



Western propaganda didn't force people by the droves to risk their lives trying to escape the Soviet dominate East to the free West.

The Berlin wall wasn't built to keep people out but to keep people in.


Here we go again...
I posed a question, not a statement. Just curious how you would feel about that idea.
Let me tell you. In those days it really didn't matter much if you lived on the East or West side. Most of Europe was in ruins. People in the west didn't have more food or money or work or anything than those on the other side. In fact, East German economy plummeted after the wall fell and people were miserable. Their currency was worth nothing from one day to the next. Everyone was suddenly bankrupt.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying a communist government would be better or worse than we have now because I wouldn't know, I haven't lived under one.

Also, I am not saying that the Russians are better than US or v.v. All I'm saying is that you are not as great you think you are. That is all. We are now discussing all sorts of topics which have nothing to do with that.

Remember when you guys wanted to invade Iraq? And us EU folk were voting on the issue if we were to join you in mobilizing our troops? More than half of the countries voted against the invasion. Until your president threathened us in a live press conference with the line : "You're either our ally.... or our enemy" (a day I'll never forget. No need to post a source, this will be forever imprinted in my memory)

Tyranny at it's most gruesome. We were feared into participating in a bogus war on terror who nobody outside the US was supporting.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mokoman
And regarding the Truman Doctrine (love the name) that really doesn't mean anything to me. I suppose you also believe that the Patriot Act is there to protect you from terrorists?


So let me guess.

Then the Marshall plan was a way in which to enslave western Europe? I think I read that some place in one of those Fringe revisionist books.


Yeah Yeah I know it's a wicki source before you go off having a cow about the source. I'm tired I've been up all night chatting online with my son who is stationed in Greece. So I didn't bother finding a better source. The info's good. trust me I think they might know about it in Europe.


Marshall Plan

The Marshall Plan (from its enactment, officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the primary plan of the United States for rebuilding and creating a stronger foundation for the countries of Western Europe, and repelling communism after World War II.

The reconstruction plan, developed at a meeting of the participating European states, was established on June 5, 1947. It offered the same aid to the USSR and its allies, but they did not accept it.

The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948 By the time the plan had come to completion, the economy of every participant state, with the exception of Germany, had grown well past pre-war levels.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Mokoman
 



Remember when you guys wanted to invade Iraq? And us EU folk were voting on the issue if we were to join you in mobilizing our troops? More than half of the countries voted against the invasion. Until your president threathened us in a live press conference with the line : "You're either our ally.... or our enemy" (a day I'll never forget. No need to post a source, this will be forever imprinted in my memory)

Tyranny at it's most gruesome. We were feared into participating in a bogus war on terror who nobody outside the US was supporting.


How do you figure that Bush saying either your with us or against forced other nations to help us?

Was France forced into participating? Did we make France an enemy?

These are more or less the countries who participated in Iraq.


These countries are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Rep, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, , United Kingdom, and Ukraine.


www.iraqwarveterans.org...

Granted some might have helped out because they wanted a favor in return, but I don't see how we feared them into doing so.

Could you tell me what country not on the list that we made an enemy because they chose not to help us in Iraq?




top topics



 
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join